Peter Thiel founder of Paypal and Bilderberger, says we need more secrecy.

Here is Peter as he emerges from this year's Bilderberg meeting.

Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange asks Peter for a comment on how he reconciles his Libertarian views with the Bilderberg agenda.

I've never heard anything about secrecy being promoted among Libertarians.

And then he goes on to equate openness with the Stasi, saying its something they supported...

If in-fact the Stasi supported a government which didnt operate in secrecy, maybe its the one thing they got right.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Seems like is talking about having privacy to have candid conversations. If we all have our PC monitors on very little gets solved.

Imagine if every conversation you have was being monitored, everyone would be in big trouble.

There is a difference between privacy and secrecy.

"Libertarianism not synonymous with radical transparency" claims Peter Thiel. His version has to fully do with protecting corporatocracy.

a reply to: seasonal
a reply to: Leonidas


Well I was stating it in terms of government ie public servants, who answer to the people.

I agree, individuals have a right to privacy. My interpretation of his statement is a pitch for secrecy vs privacy.

And while some of the Bilderbergers are "private individuals" (although wanting to shape policy), many of the invitees are public servants.

Isnt that their mantra for the sheeple, "you dont need to worry about being searched if youve got nothing to hide".

a reply to: gladtobehere

In the modern world privacy and security are mutually exclusive. Horrible isn't it?

Between the internet and the availability of products to make weapons we opened Pandora's box.

I hate it, but it is what it is.

Unless somebody has an idea on how we can be safe and private at the same time?

a reply to: Jonjonj

Since all notion of security on a planet which could, at any moment be smashed asunder by cometary impact, must be an illusion, I will take privacy, since it is something I could, potentially have, whereas security is a notion and nothing more.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Jonjonj

Since all notion of security on a planet which could, at any moment be smashed asunder by cometary impact, must be an illusion, I will take privacy, since it is something I could, potentially have, whereas security is a notion and nothing more.

There are many ways to ignore a concept. Some of our brethren prefer to forget the reality of what we would like to call life.

Others enjoy producing contrary concepts and hoping that people don't notice.

Still others use verbiage as a way to obviate the facts spoken.

I personally like to call a spade a spade.

There is no way in this world I would prefer a meteor to hit the planet than protect the people I care for.

Big words, big ideas!

Just to be clear: You don't believe in security because...comets.

Yep, sorted.

Of course we should not be surprised a billionaire such as Peter would throw Libertarian Logic Out the Door when he is part of the top elite, talking with PUBLIC and private individuals, the same individuals that have no problem with spying and no privacy for the rest of us.

His reference to Nazi Germany and Radical Transparency is laughable because it was the top elite that imposed Radical Transparency on everyone else while they enjoyed secret meetings and secret gatherings hidden from the public eye.

He is part of that same Nazi Type thinking. Secrecy and Privacy for US but complete transparency for everyone below us